Senior councillors in Solihull have engaged in a heated debate over proposed modifications to the council’s tax support scheme, highlighting differing views on the scheme’s generosity.
Last year, the Conservative-led Solihull Council transitioned from a means-tested approach to a simplified ‘income banded’ system, aligning with models used by many other local authorities. However, since its introduction, the scheme has seen a surge of 532 additional claimants between April and December 2025, resulting in an extra cost of approximately £390,000.
By the end of the year, total expenditure on the scheme reached £14.7 million, with a reported deficit of £811,000, prompting the need for further adjustments.
READ MORE: Bristol Airport Launches New Crackdown on Illegal and Nuisance Parking
Joanne Robinson, the council’s head of income and awards, addressed the cabinet, explaining, “The proposed reductions ensure that individuals receiving the standard amount of universal credit continue to access the maximum support available, while helping to manage the scheme’s escalating costs.”
Public consultation on these changes garnered 271 responses, with most participants supporting the proposed amendments. Following this, the government announced a 6.2% increase in universal credit standard rates as part of the Autumn Budget. This adjustment raised the required increase in support for couples with one child from £10 to £15, ensuring their support remains adequate.
Councillor Bob Sleigh, cabinet member for resources, emphasized that 93% of claimants would see either consistent or increased support. “For those facing reductions, we offer opportunities to apply for exceptional hardship support. The scheme remains fair,” he asserted.
However, dissent came from Green Party councillor Max McLoughlin, who criticized the budget balancing methods. “While the administration opposes council tax increases due to their regressive nature, reducing support for low-income recipients is equally burdensome,” he argued.
Deputy leader Ian Courts defended the scheme’s relative generosity compared to similar councils, challenging critics to propose alternative funding if they advocate for more extensive support.
Reform UK councillor Michael Gough contended the scheme’s generosity, stating, “Working people receive no income discounts, so by providing discounts to non-working claimants, the system favors those not in employment.”
Ultimately, senior council members agreed to recommend the proposed changes for approval at the full council meeting scheduled for February 12.